21 Jul
2003
21 Jul
'03
5:06 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Future uncollectable computers...
Alot of people use their computer as a status symbol just like people who
sell a perfectly good 3 yr old car at a loss to buy the newest model.
There are different hardware requirements for each age of PC's (IBM
compatible). The dos era programs ran fine of xt/at/386 systems, windows 3.x
on 386/486 systems and windows 9x on high end 486 to today. The main reason
people upgrade alot is because of computer gaming, especially the 3d games
of the last 5+ years.
My last job I was using a p200 compaq and it worked fine for the programs
and computations I had to run. A newer computer would have been nicer/faster
but wasnt manditory. The CAD guy made use of a dual p2-300/512mb ram/some
old expensive video card/9gb uwscsi system that is ancient but ran autocad
just fine on windows nt4.
I am building a nice collection of original 68k mac software that is still
fast and usefull even today on upgraded 68k machines (fast scsi hd's and max
memory) even though I have a xp1500 amd 512mb ddr and an ati 9000 video card
on my main game pc. If you have any boxed software for the 68k macs you dont
want let me know.
Quothe Fred N. van Kempen, from writings of Mon, Jul
21, 2003 at
10:30:07AM +0200:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't think this is a valid point. The
*average* PC user doesn't do
incremental Upgrades, just like the average Mac user doesn't.
Indeed; they
lack the skills to do so. Which is usually why they call
upon their (more) geeky friends to do that for them. Down here, I see people change their hardware at
least once every year,
and the really geeky ones even more often. The lost ones are in a
[...]
Something about all of this upgrade mania makes no sense to me.
Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading seems rather pointless. If I
need more disk space, I'll just add another drive, or another file
server. If speed becomes an issue, which it rarely does (I'm talking
about UNIX, not Windoze with all of it's super-duper crash-happy
bloatware), I'll do processing on a faster system on the network, find
a faster system at a hamfest, replace a PC's CPU with a faster CPU,
etc... whatever's cheapest. A 200 MHz CPU on a PC running FreeBSD,
for example, is plenty fast for most things, from compiling large
programs to the kind of processing needed for LaTeX (when writing
manuscripts hundreds of pages long), Csound and Lilypond. Peripherals
such as keyboards, monitors and laser printers go for many, many,
years without being replaced, unless they become unrepairable or
higher-resolution is needed... 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768 displays
have been available for many years. Tape drives - those only get
replaced with higher-capacity drives as storage needs increase.
Network cards... well, those old 10MBit/s cards from a decade or so
ago still work fine.